MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W283144324

When Children Refuse Medical Treatment: Role of Government and Assessments; a Standardized Test to Assess a Child's Maturity and Understanding Would Help Judges in Their Solomonic Roles to Render More Uniform Decisions

2002· article· en· W283144324 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carla E. Burden-Osmond

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGovernment (linguistics)Test (biology)Maturity (psychological)JurisdictionPsychologyInformed consentConsistency (knowledge bases)GuardianLawFamily medicinePolitical scienceMedicineAlternative medicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A standardized test to assess a child's maturity and understanding would help judges in their Solomonic roles to render more uniform decisions THE ROLE and responsibility of government and a child's maturity level and understanding of medical were two issues raised in three Canadian cases decided in the 1990s-Walker (Litigation Guardian of) v. Region 2 Hospital Corp.,1 Re Dueck,2 and Re Y (A.).3 These concerns are relevant to the most significant issue of how to protect children while respecting their wishes when they refuse medical treatment. Evident in these cases is the lack of consistency in determining whether a child reasonably the grave consequences of not receiving medical for a terminal illness. A standardized test such as a mandatory psychological analysis or evaluation would provide a consistent method for courts to determine a child's maturity level and understanding of the consequences of rejecting medical treatment. Such a refinement would clarify the jurisdiction of parens patriae and help government to establish more firmly its role in dealing with children who refuse medical treatment. INFORMED CONSENT A. Significance In general, consent refers to an agreement given freely by one individual or entity to another. In a medical setting, consent is qualified by the word informed. Before medical practitioners can treat a patient, they must provide that individual with information about the nature of the medical procedure and any risks inherent in it. A doctor's failure to disclose this information to a patient can vitiate the patient's consent to receive and opens the door to a world of problems for the provider. Without valid permission from a patient, any type of direct contact by a doctor to a patient could result in a tort action of battery or in a criminal charge of assault.4 Thus, informed consent can have an enormous impact on the entire medical community. Patients who provide informed consent for medical must be competent; they must be able to understand the nature and consequences of and be of reasoning a decision. A mentally competent patient also can refuse medical even if the is necessary for survival. A doctor may not agree with a patient's decision to reject medical attention, but as long as the person is of making that decision, the doctor must respect it. B. Children The specific age for a person to enjoy certain rights as an adult varies throughout the Canadian provinces depending on the provisions of particular legislation. New Brunswick's legislation permits a minor rather than an adult guardian to consent to medical treatment. The Medical Consent of Minors Act provides that any child under 16 years of age who is capable of understanding the nature and consequences of a medical treatment can provide consent for the administration of medical treatment.5 British Columbia has a similar provision stating that a child who understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of healthcare can consent to treatment.6 These statutes concur with the Canadian common law doctrine that any child who is mature and the nature of medical procedure can consent to such treatment.7 MATURITY AND UNDERSTANDING These statutes, common law doctrine and various literature concerning a child's ability to consent to medical all focus on the same question: Is the child mature and able to understand the nature of the and the consequences of refusing it? This question was significant in the cited cases, which were decided by courts in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. A. Dueck - Saskatchewan Re Dueck concerned a 13-year-old boy named Tyrell who endured chemotherapy to treat cancer. Toward the end of the treatment, Tyrell stated that he neither wanted to undergo any further chemotherapy treatment, nor have surgery on his leg. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,024
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,178
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,354

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0240,060
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,010
Communication savante0,0060,003
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,354
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareTravaux en français237 207